[Cosper123]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

If you read the posts then you would understand the questions I was directing my answers at, and no clarification would be necessary.

Yes, clarification is necessary because you aren't making sense. Your statement was one huge logical fallacy and now I am politely asking you to please explain it.

So please, stop deflecting and simply answer.

[Cosper123]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I think we DO have the best healthcare, in the world. At issue isn't the provision of care, but the financing of it. Even you admit this with your summation that the issue, for you, is single payor, a financing mechanism.

You believe that better financing will lead to better care and so, improve upon these statistics.

I agree.

The problem is that the financing disaster we have now, third party payor, is the result of the government. You seem to assume that I'm advocating the status quo while you're advocating improving the system. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I'm advocating improving the system. Since the chief problem with financing healthcare today is gov't interference in order to support employer sponsored insurance that takes away your decisions and places it in the hands of your employer and Uncle Daddy, I simply do not trust the gov't with yet another financing scheme of its creation.

The gov't IS THE PROBLEM with healthcare financing today. Single payor is only bringing that level of gov't incompetence and control over your healthcare full circle. He who pays the bills decides the care. Uncle Daddy simply doesn't trust YOU to take care of your own healthcare.

It's not a matter of whether single payor would be better than the current system. I don't think so. I think it's just more of the same. I think the result will be a fair share is reduced quality at longer waits. That IS the experience of single payor, world wide. The point is that the free market would be better than the current system. That's a no-brainer.

There is no CHOICE but to reduce service and increase waits under single payor. It's the law of supply and demand. Gov't can't legislate that away. When you create unlimited demand, by declaring a product 'free', then you must either create unlimited supply (an impossibility) or ration supply.

The free market is a much better choice for improving the system. We do NOT have a free market system in healthcare today. Today, we have a gov't financing scheme, third payor healthcare.

Going to first payor, free market care will restore balance and make healthcare available for almost everybody. At THAT point, we can pick up the difference and ensure care, for all. It will only be affordable to do so, however, when we are allowed to pay for our own care.

Here's how the market works: somebody wants to sell you something. They want to make a profit. In order to sell you something, you have to be willing and ABLE to pay for it. First payor will bring sanity because providers will only be able to charge what most people can actually PAY. This works. It works well.

We do have a choice. You advocate more of the same - gov't interference in your healthcare. I advocate a different path, a path PROVEN to provide the best combination of quality and cost - the free market.

Finally, let me suggest that 'everybody else is doing it' isn't such a great political argument in American politics. Americans like being mavericks. If everybody else was jumping off a cliff, would you? Then why would you create a defective healthcare product when the answer is much easier: get Washington out of your heathcare? They don't belong. The gov't NEVER had the right to step between you and your care. They certainly don't have the right to make your healthcare their monopoly.

The problem with single-payor is that those that make the rules in gov't don't consider themselves accountable to you. Why should they, when greater than 90% routinely win re-election? They are bought and paid for, and it isn't by you. Gov't monopolies, like any monopoly, simply do not have your best interests at heart. When gov't starts using single payor to ration out your healthcare, it will be to the highest campaign bidders. Think Halliburton, in charge of your care. THAT is what is being offered. No, thanks.

We've tried gov't financing schemes for healthcare for six decades now, and our current system is the result. It's time for a change.

~faith,
Timothy.

How does that apply to Germany's or even France's system? Seems there is a great deal of choice...and free market to me does not seem proven at all. The free market means those of high risk don't get insured and cared for...plain and simple. That is how insurance works, it's how they make their money. No preventative care, treated only when their condition becomes acute, and that higher cost mind you...deferred to the rest of us.

Furthermore, 'everybody else is doing it' was not stated. Nice twist on words there, but it was never even implied. You even went one step further by stating "if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?" Well, I'll ignore the logical fallacy there and provide you with a bit of common sense...wisdom is the ability to learn from other's mistakes and successes. If in America's arrogance you chose to do things your own way...in spite of what can be learned from others...so be it. I chose to try and find a solution where those who need care can get it, not just those fortunite enough to be able to afford it. Where a free market is concerned, that is all that is "proven".

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29339.html

http://www.healthcarecom.net/hhk1993.htm

http://archives2.sifma.org/savings07...Walker_Web.pdf

Game, set, match!

ROFL!!

You didn't even read your own links, did you?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

http://allnurses.com/forums/f8/reall...ce-259436.html

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Goldstein

http://allnurses.com/forums/f8/reall...ce-259436.html

Thanks for a core nursing value oriented posting.

[sharona97]

Originally Posted by heartrn35

Do you really think that a Gov't run health care system is a good idea. We are talking about the same people who can't ever balance a budget. These people think that balancing the budget is done by raising taxes. And you want them in charge of our healthcare system? I DON"T THINK SO.

Eight years ago the President walked right into a balanced budget. IMO I wouldn't want this administration in charge of the healthcare systems in America.

[nicurn001]

It is highly probable that at some time in our life all of us will require some healthcare .
The arguments in this discussion seems to boil down to ,
a) those that beleive in self reliance , saying that we as individuals should provide for our own healthcare through private insurance .
b) those opposing beleive all of us at some point will need healthcare ,so we should spread the risk and funding to everyone .

In group a)response we see a healthcare system ,whose primary objective is make a profit ( even non profit healtcare,means not making a loss,so some areas charge more to cover the loss in other area's).Which leads to a healtcare sytem that gravitates towards providing care that will generate profit , so we see duplication of care within a market , or else your system will be at a disadvantage to a competitor.Whilst group b)'s opposing system usually has a greater emphasis on preventive care , because as we are all know prevention is better than cure

The proponents of group a) forget that the basic principal of insurance is the spread of risk , the larger you make the pool of insured the more you spread the risk and therefore reduce the costs to the individual.

If you have Insurance you have accepted group reliance.So now we have to decide who should control the flow of healtcare dollars /then decide who should receive treatment.Should this flow be controlled by private insurance companies who make decisions on the profitability of that decision , or by primary care physicians who will base that care upon medical need . In either Private Insurance or Universal Healthcare there is not unlimited funding / provision of care , so whischever system is used there is always denial of care / restriction of care to some.
So with the above factors I for one would prefer to pay throuh my taxes for healthcare . It relieves me from the serfdom of employer provided Halth insurance , releives the employer from the cost of providing Healthcare and creats the largest possible pool of insured to negotiate with all who prove healthcare related services / products .

[gizmo12]

If there is socialized medicine in the US, our RN licenses will not be worth the paper they are printed on. How much are the nurses making in countries where socialized medicine is practiced?

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by gizmo12

If there is socialized medicine in the US, our RN licenses will not be worth the paper they are printed on. How much are the nurses making in countries where socialized medicine is practiced?

Sources to back up your assertion?

Single payer is not socialized medicine. See:
Is national health insurance “socialized medicine”?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.
The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.
Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

[mianders]

Have you ever spoke to anyone that lived in a country with "socialized medicine" or "socialized health insurance"? The people that use it and the healthcare providers themselves will tell you if you have an emergent problem you can be seen, but if your problem is chronic the wait times are extremely long to have anything done. I know several people from Eurpoe and Canada and they are not very impressed with the healthcare system they have. This is not the solution.